The Fallacy of Literal Interpretation

[Ben Masada]

Isn't the miracle of the virgin birth simply a miracle that folks mistranslated the text?

Whose would it be a miracle of, Mary's? God's? If Mary could have induced herself to get pregnant without the help of a man, yes, it was a miracle. A miracle of God, it couldn't be. Not for the Creator of the universe, Whom anything else would be just natural.

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Of course, one is free to believe that. But, I believe it stands for something "beyond".

Would you share with us what in your opinion stands for something "beyond" in this case?

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

The idea that Jesus was the result of a rape of Mary by a Roman soldier is not fanciful thinking . It is far more likely than the virgin birth,the idea of which even the church is back tracking on.
Historical accounts written at the time describe a raid on her village by the romans in retaliation for guerilla attacks by her villagers on roman soldiers. Soldiers being soldiers they would have raped and pillaged their way through her village by way of revenge
If you must persist in the fable of the so called virgin birth then it is more likely that she was impregnated by aliens and was to embarresed to tell of an alien abduction.

Hey Nyphilim, take a look at this:

THE ALLEGED SONS OF GOD

According to an ancient Roman policy, any able-bodied man from the conquered lands, who joined the Roman Army, would obtain automatic Roman citizenship. And if he was lucky enough to reach retirement age, he could choose wherever he would like to spend the rest of his life, and he would be granted a piece of land or farm as severance pay for his services to the Empire. Rome excluded.

When the Roman Legions arrived in the Middle East and conquered Sidon, a man called Pantera applied to join the Army and was accepted. Then, he was conscripted into the Roman Legion which got stationed in Syria. When he reached retirement age, he chose to return to Sidon and got his farm there to live for the rest of his life.

According to Josephus, in the year 4 BCE, there was a local revolt in Israel against Herod. It became known as the Revolt of the Pharisees. It was so strong that it was threatening to depose him. Herod appealed to Rome for help and Caesar gave orders to the Legion stationed in Syria to cross over into Israel and put down the revolt.

Thousands of Roman soldiers came over and the task was quite easy. They crucified a few thousand Jews, and decided to stay for some time to make sure the discontent were subdued. In the meantime, the Roman soldiers would rape young Jewish ladies, at their hearts content, almost daily.

As it was to expect, many children were born as a result of those rapes. Since the unfortunate mothers were not to blame for promiscuity, the religious authorities forbade to ostracize them or to consider their children as mamzerim or ba$tards. But they grew up with the epithet of "sons of God." (Lecture on the "Historical Jesus" at Stanphord University)

Since Jesus was born just about that time, I am of the opinion that, it is much more prudent and less embarrassing to acknowledge that he was a biological son of Joseph's than to run the risk that Jesus might have been one of those sons of God.

Now, regarding Mark 7:24, I have here with me two different Bible translations. One is the Catholic New American version of the Bible, wherefrom, I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would retire into a certain house and wanted no one to recognize him in there. The other translation is the King James version, wherefrom, I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would enter into a certain house and would have no man know it.

Although I am not assuming anything, everyone of us has all the right in the world to speculate about such a shouting evidence, and to think that there was something fishy going on for Jesus to insist on secrecy about his being in Sidon or in that certain house. At that time Joseph had been long dead. Could it be that jesus knew about his real origins and was interacting with his real father? Everything is possible, but if you ask me, I am still in favor that he was rather a biological son of Joseph's.

What's your reaction to all the above?

Ben:

 

[radarmark]

Would you share with us what in your opinion stands for something "beyond" in this case?

Ben

Easy, it is not a mistranslation of the early Aramaic and Greek sources, so the NT meant "virgin". The idea of the use of "virgin" is a mistranslation is a false flag.

Now the question should be do I believe in the Traditional Christian interpretation that "virgin" means "hymen intact" or is it a usage of "unmarried" (once betrothed it was not uncommon for intercourse)? Or do I think it merely a symbolic re-iteration of the "eternal virgin" myth?

I think (I believe) that there is a "mythical truth" that could have been actualized (made manifest) in Our Lady and Our Lord.

I am about as convinced of it as Robert Anton Wilson was in his writing or Phillip Kindred Dick in his (I believe it on experience).

 

[Nephilim48]

You obviously did not fully understand my last post maybe you should read it again, and this time with your brain engaged. I at no time said that christians were responsible for the idea of Mary's rape by Roman soldiers. There are historically documented reports that her village was ransacked and the women raped in retaliation for guerilla raids by the people of her village on the Roman soldiers.
What I did state was that Christians, and amongst them prominent church men,find the idea of the virgin birth hard to believe.
I trust that is now clear to you

 

[Thomas]

... There are historically documented reports that her village was ransacked and the women raped in retaliation for guerilla raids by the people of her village on the Roman soldiers.

Really? I know Josephus speaks of Roman actions in the area, but I think you might be assuming just a little too much here.

What I did state was that Christians, and amongst them prominent church men,find the idea of the virgin birth hard to believe.

So? Today you'll find a self-declared Christian that doesn't believe in God! Today 'Christianity' seems to mean anything anyone wants it to mean ...

What matters is what the doctrine says ... and all the available evidence (the testimony of Scripture) points to a Virgin Birth. None of it, other than hearsay and a leap into speculation, says anything about rape.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

As with taijasi, I am not arguing with what you believe, nor do I assume any need or obligation to accept my beliefs. What I argue against is the misrepresentation of what I believe; what I believe the doctrine to say.

Naturally, everyone has the right to believe as s/he wishes. And if you were to keep that to yourself, or perhaps say a word or two on occasion, if solicited, then it would be fairly well kept between thee and thine.

Yet the moment you set figurative foot on a public forum and begin to tell the *rest* of us that "the doctrine says thus & such," you take upon yourself the burden of needing to defend your viewpoint and beliefs. The reason for this is that we ~ pretty darn well all of us around here ~ are not unthinking SHEEP. Thus, if you wish to see the Lion lay down with the lamb, give us something substantial, and quit acting like everyone who sees things different than you (most folks here, and most Christians I know) is just believing in a SHAM.

Now, surely it is true that my views are unconventional; thus I must play by the same rules you do, whether I drive a Rolls or a Jeep or a Lincoln Continental. Okay, enough of that. My point's that we're all fairly well astute observers, students of Biblical teaching or in some cases religious scholars, enough so to step in the ring with you, when we don't see eye to eye.

It doesn't need to become knock-down, drag-out ... yet when push comes to shove everyone here is well aware that the pen is mightier, so let's not pretend your ivory-tower education and unending list of lovely credentials is anything that most of us care 2 farthings about. Most of us, if pressed, can comes off as Sophists and Casuists as well as you can, and be as underhanded and cunning as any high-falutin' Jesuit.

Keep things simple, Thomas, and remind me to do the same. A lot of folks around here don't need to be looked down at, over the bridge of your nose or out from behind those spectacles ... any more than they need to glop around in ancient Sanskrit, or be handed an extra set of testicles. Plenty of fortitude already, I would say. Not that it'd do you much good come Judgment Day (that was purely for the rhyme) ...

As for what it is you might feel inclined to defend, I'd agree with you on principle: Anything which you feel (or otherwise think/believe strongly) the author or originators (of a Teaching, of a doctrine) didn't intend! Or if you think the point's been largely missed, yes, I can see how the hypocrisy, self-righteousness or vanity's enough to get ANY reasonable person pissed. Upset, that is ... irate; feathers ruffled out the starting gate. It's not a cockfight, nor a drunken bar brawl; notice also, I'm a southerner, without hint of the southern drawl. Good with non sequiturs but only when I, needless, rhyme; then again, I do far crazier sh*t at times.

Back to the thread topic: I will present a few observations, deviating from the discussion on the Virgin ... a pointless, futile debate I'd argue, as some of us have already made our case (quite well) regarding why the story has very little to do with the woman who birthed the Galilean, and the absurd notion that she was any more a virgin than I am. Far purer of character, yes, but as capable of virgin birth as South Park's Towelie is of becoming Peter Pan.

The Scriptural passage, from Matthew, which all Christians might consider in new light (and this mode of understanding *the Christ Himself* encouraged us to USE) is ch.16, v.18 ... and other surrounding verses. The Roman Catholic Church has much abused and twisted what was spoken, its proper context and what appears to me as the obvious connotation, yet here any Catholics among us might have a chance to redeem themselves, as surely they would not be so easily misled when the opportunity presents itself (across the many centuries) to be more circumspect.

Immediately after the Christ asks Peter the Apostle whom the latter believes the former to be (with relevance to the subject of Soteriology, the doctrine of a coming Saviour) ... Peter answers Him, saying that "[He] is the Christ, the Son of the living God." Now immediately Peter is answered, and the Christ confirms Peter's affirmation. Furthermore, and this is where we should take careful note, Christ goes on to tell (us) WHY and HOW Peter has come to this realization, this understanding, this recognition. He says:

"Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona:
for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,
but my Father which is in heaven." ~Matt. 16:17​

Well I'll be darned! There's ol' St. Pete, except there's no RC Church around yet to appoint him Pontiff. And if you want to argue that the Christ Himself is about to, well that's just not well supported ~ yet He doesn't do that until the very next verse, even by your own, faulty & flawed logic. There aren't a gaggle of bishops, or a Council of Elders (with nice white expensive robes and long flowing beards) to make sure that PETER is on the RIGHT PAGE here, *Thomas* (et al) ... instead, it's just ol' Peter and the Christ Himself, and notice what these two SAID.

Christ asked Peter who he thought he was; and Peter *ANSWERED HIM CORRECTLY* ... because, says Christ Jesus, the FATHER in Heaven hath revealed it. Not the flesh, you must carefully note. NOT the physical eyes and ears, or the studious mind, pouring over the manuscripts and commentary of TRADITION!

Now you can quibble, and you can DOCTOR this original piece of writing, as hath often been done ~ yes, mistranslations abound. But here's one passage which I don't mind taking literally. Stop making up *alternate takes* and ~ while you still can, my friends ~ let's put on the brakes.

The passages that follow are the ones that confound; clearly, if you let him, Thomas here will run you straight into the ground.

It's not that I question that you believe, my friend; it's just that your belief is unfounded, and as best I can tell it's just, pure pretense ... unless, in good faith I would grant you, you have *simply misinterpreted* what Christ and Peter spake.

And what did they say next? Let's see ...

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."~Matt 16:18-23​

What happens here, I think any of us with a brain can see. Christ tells Peter that upon "this rock" He shall build his future Church. The latter is not the Roman Catholic Church; the former is not the man, Simon Barjona. The Roman Catholics, however, decided to distort things a wee bit, just enough to fit their plan.

St. Peter, just as Jesus, was *most certainly* a man. He was far more imperfect even than John the Beloved, and than his rival, St. Paul. Arguably, at best, there was a certain wise insight and prescience about him (one to which I can testify, personally) ... and this time being prior to the Crucifixion and to the arrival of St. Paul, it may be said that the work of St. John across the coming centuries (including that he tarry until the Christ come(s) again) arguably was along different lines than that of St. Peter. Thus, in one possible real and practical sense, in the appointing of St. Peter as the chief Apostle, the argument may be made that here Christ is speaking of THE MAN.

Take that jazz one step further, and you're only tooting your own horn, speaking of own institution's MOST unholy agenda, and unless MURDER, TORTURE, RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION and BLASPHEMY are the M.O. and methodology of your Lord then let's *not even pretend* that anything else was going on here. For, in the very next passages, Christ tells THE APOSTLES, ALL of them, and *not* simply Peter, that "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" shall be given unto them ... and reaffirms for them ~ IN PLAIN TERMS ~ that most sacred of Axioms, from the Emerald Tablet, the Hermetic Axiom.

Of course, if *my* Church had gouged out my powers of reason and perception, *I* might be so blind as to miss this most obvious of pronouncements, too. Fortunately, even while I have long known the passage and have read it many times, there is everything in my past to HELP with using the Light of Insight and True Reason. Thus, for no more than 2 minutes passed ... have I known precisely what it was Christ had to say (in this last capacity). The HERMETIC AXIOM, you see. It's not hard, if you're LOOKING for the Truth ~ rather than flying blind, with never the room or capacity for ANYTHING new under the S*n to enter your heart or mind.

Strange, also, that this man who went about teaching so OPENLY would then charge his disciples to keep his true Identity a SECRET. Shhhhhhhh ... don't tell Thomas. He hates when you talk about this stuff!

And Christ did then begin to reveal something to the Disciples about the days ahead, yet it did not sit well with ANY of [them]; I can assure you that. Peter had the balls to say outright, "You must be MAD! Smite the bloody buggers!" ~ and notice what, then, Christ did. He went so far as to point out that Peter was thinking worldly-wise, for the Adversary is AS CUNNING in this regard as any of us ... and the kind of ruckus the Disciples would have, in one sense, preferred was none other than the M.O. of a Jesus Barabbas, an UNREST they would have stirred.

Jesus made enough unrest automatically; this wasn't at all his primary mission. Thus he went to great pains to correct the thinking of St. Peter (and the rest), and set, for their wise knowing and foresight, God's Plan clearly enough before them ... as it related to the days & trials ahead. They were told of what must be, and why, and even how things would likely go down for them. Most, simply did not want to hear or bear it; and I dare say it was a tragedy for ALL ... as what might have been 30 years in the flesh was cut short to 3. Esotericists, some, are aware ~ that in the subtle body Christ came to the Apostles in the decades ahead, as even the Catholic Church's own commentaries bear witness, or so the Apocrypha have said.

But do, let's take LIT'rally this business about the ROCK; else, like poor St. Peter, we shall ever TREMBLE whene'er we hear the cock [crow].

I'll give three interpretations, and each of them has a measure of truth. I will present them in proper order, and leave the judging up to YOU:

1. Christ referred to the REVELATION of the Father ... as the ROCK upon which He is building the true Church. This is shown, above. Not our eyes and ears of flesh, per se, but the FATHER which is "in us;" THIS is how we Know the WAY. This is our Rock, 2100 years ago and *every* day! The play upon words, the petra as it is pointed out, may be clever, yet there is nothing mysterious here, no rationale for the extravagant claims that we've seen built around it ...
2. Christ was referring to the PLANET Itself, this `Rock,' as a 2nd connotation ... and certainly, again, here He is building the true Church. In a most universal connotation, those with eyes to see it and ears to hear, are quite aware that the true Church of Christ is present already and *everywhere*. But if you *must* convert and become a Vaishnava, fine, go right ahead. I say it isn't necessary, any more than warming those pews on Sunday, or getting a few more holes drilled in your head. Or could it be that some just need a good trepanning? We shall see.
3. Because the Apostle Peter is to be appointed head of the group in Christ's [physical] absence, which He immediately begins recounting, in this sense [ONLY], yes, the MAN Peter can be seen as a `Rock' of Faith, of Tradition and of a Universal Christianity. Nowhere in here, however, is the kind of exclusivity, Member's Only Club mentality and smug superiority complex authorized or underwritten ... as we often find, not simply among Roman Catholics, but among so-called `Christians' of every ilk.

So how's that for trying to make best, despite the spilled milk?

A different interpretation, and one which I CAN support. I gladly, warmly welcome any sensible retort. But as I've peppered my usual, lengthy post with atrocious rhymes, surely an eyesore to most ... I would hardly be disappointed if not a word were said, and *especially* if all you feel [Thomas] is exceptionally disjointed.

Stick to the talk of Mother Mary; I've explained why for me that's a dead horse ... yet as it's the current topic of discussion, perhaps just let things run their course? Count on me to mix it up a bit.

 

[Thomas]

Yet the moment you set figurative foot on a public forum and begin to tell the *rest* of us that "the doctrine says thus & such," you take upon yourself the burden of needing to defend your viewpoint and beliefs.

True. Here are the minimum basic resources I use:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (available online)
A more detailed resource is Ludwig Ott's "The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma", but that's not available online.

The Scriptural passage, from Matthew, which all Christians might consider in new light (and this mode of understanding *the Christ Himself* encouraged us to USE) is ch.16, v.18 ...

What's this to do with Virgin Birth?

... its proper context and what appears to me as the obvious connotation ...

What 'obvious connotations' appear to you is not the point. You need to be able to defend your argument that the doctrine says what you think it does. Thinking it is not an argument.

Well I'll be darned! There's ol' St. Pete, except there's no RC Church around yet to appoint him Pontiff. And if you want to argue that the Christ Himself is about to, well that's just not well supported

What about the text that says: "I will build my church"?
Note the verb — it's in the future tense.

Christ asked Peter who he thought he was; and Peter *ANSWERED HIM CORRECTLY* ... because, says Christ Jesus, the FATHER in Heaven hath revealed it. Not the flesh, you must carefully note. NOT the physical eyes and ears, or the studious mind, pouring over the manuscripts and commentary of TRADITION!

Exactly. 'not the flesh' means Peter did not arrive at the knowledge through the operation of the intellect, nor some other external source — so that in itself refutes your notion that extra-Scriptural philosophies can explain or even determine the meaning of Scripture.

Which is precisely what the doctrine says.

So I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

... and you can DOCTOR this original piece of writing as hath often been done

The absence of evience is not evidence.

I know the Theosophical argument that states "If the text does not say what we want it to say then obviously someone must have doctored it ..." It's the Geddes MacGregor position, when he insists that Origen must have preached reincarnation, because he (Geddes) believes in it.

Thankfully, there's enough evidence to demonstrate that Geddes was wrong.

... so unless you have proof that Scripture was 'DOCTORED', presumably by the Fathers of the Tradition, I will treat that statement with the contempt it deserves, it's a vile calumny.

When you've got proof you can evidence, come back to me.

But please stop playing to the gallery, and stick to the point.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[radarmark]

Let us go with Andrew's assumed notion of rationality, belief and feelings can be wrong and there is some fixed intention. The problem is we can never empirically (through the use of senses, science and reason) discern what that intention is. He gives three alternatives to the Traditional Catholic version of Peter’s Role. Let me add the Eastern Tradition’s view of Rome (Peter) as the First Patriarchate and the Eastern (Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem) Patriarchates as equal. So we have:

1) Peter as the Rock upon which I will build my church.
2) Peter as the foundation but the all Patriarchates as the structure (the church).
3) The “Revelation of the Father” as the rock.
4) The earth itself as the rock.
5) Peter as the rock in Christ’s absence.

Is there any way of proving (empirically) one or the other is the “intended notion” of Jesus (or, even if Jesus ever spoke these words)? No.
Reason can only provide a snapshot of their relative probabilities given our knowledge (as an individual or collectively and objectively as a group—and this varies according to which group with what objectivity).
#4) is (given the context of Matthew) not very likely (there is no proof of earth worship in Jesus’ words), call it 1%
#5) is (given the context of Matthew) not very likely because there is (in this Chapter) a mere passing inference of three days’ absence, call it 2% (about twice as likely as #4)
#3) is not too much more likely since Jesus does not focus on Revelation but Faith in the L!RD per the preceding and following Chapters, call it 7% (about thrice as likely as #5)
Let’s equally divide the remaining percentage between the remaining options, making #1) and #2) both equate to 45%.
Now comes the tricky part—can any two or three be simultaneously true. Obviously #3 and #4 cannot. The other three? Logically they do not contradict one another. So the bottom line is that the passage probably (92% or so) means some kind of statement about Peter as the Leader (Pope, First Among Equals, or Rock in Christ’s absence).
Use whatever numbers and probabilities you like….. all you can ever prove (as far as intention goes) is a likelihood of being true, not “Truth” (in an empiric sense).
That is where Faith in the L!RD comes in, that is where your own experience (direct Revelation) comes in.
Andrew, it is your opinion, your belief, your feeling, that Peter and the Catholic Church are not discussed. Fine. It was the opinion of generations of some pretty rational cats known as the Church Fathers that Peter, Rome and the Church were precisely what was meant.
It just depends on one’s viewpoint. I believe you did not put yourself within the context of 70-600 CE mindset, where the Church (Latin or Greek or Syrianic or Ethiopian or Coptic) is the body of Chr!st, constructed (in some manner) of the Five Patriarchates.

Have individuals within that Traditional wing of Christianity been wrong, been immoral, been bad? Of course. “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.”

 

[radarmark]

kashifqdn,

Please try to post more than one message 10 or 20 times. Start a thread or take part in the conversation!

 

[wil]

simply trying to get his post count up high enough to post links....

hopefully when brian catches it, they will all be deleted...

 

[radarmark]

DUH! (sound of ice cream cone smacking forehead).

 

[Thomas]

Hi Radarmark —

Let me add the Eastern Tradition’s view of Rome (Peter) as the First Patriarchate and the Eastern (Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem) Patriarchates as equal.

Speed the day! Not in my lifetime ... sadly (although Constantinople was very, very naughty.)

Is there any way of proving (empirically) one or the other is the “intended notion” of Jesus (or, even if Jesus ever spoke these words)? No.

Quite ... Scripture rests on Scripture and Tradition.

On that point however ...
"And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." Luke 22:31-32

And most tellingly the 'feed my sheep' passage in John 21:15-18.

In Acts, Peter and John were always seen together around Jerusalem, and although it was evident there were early councils, Peter it would seem was the head of the group.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[radarmark]

Thomas, I grok. I was isolating on Matthew.

 

[Ben Masada]

Easy, it is not a mistranslation of the early Aramaic and Greek sources, so the NT meant "virgin". The idea of the use of "virgin" is a mistranslation is a false flag.

Now the question should be do I believe in the Traditional Christian interpretation that "virgin" means "hymen intact" or is it a usage of "unmarried" (once betrothed it was not uncommon for intercourse)? Or do I think it merely a symbolic re-iteration of the "eternal virgin" myth?

I think (I believe) that there is a "mythical truth" that could have been actualized (made manifest) in Our Lady and Our Lord.

I am about as convinced of it as Robert Anton Wilson was in his writing or Phillip Kindred Dick in his (I believe it on experience).

IMHO, there is no doubt at all that Christianity refers to virgin birth in the case of Mary as of a pregnanacy without the help of man. Esoterically, as in the Greek myth of the demigod, although, according to the Greek concept, there was physical contact. Demigod all the same, Jesus would be classified with being.

Ben

 

[radarmark]

Your point?

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Godhead incarnata terrestrial or celestial or spiritual-trancendental = PARADOX par Excellance.

God = Paradox

God's personage = Paradox.

This is the origin and wellspring reservoir of the Supreme dox.

<What is the etymology of the word 'paradox'?>

Obviously paradox refers to the Supreme/paramount "Dox" ---No?>

"God as Persona" and "we souls in the material world" are paradoxically existing together in the world of Duality**.

(**when I say duality, I refer to ying-yang; protons-electrons; dark-light; male-female)

 

[Thomas]

Back to Virgin Birth.

Just some considerations on posts so far ...

Andrew and Nick both claim that the Christian doctrine is the result of an error of interpretation — that what was meant to be understood figuratively, was taken literally.

But the question then is, where did this doctrine originate?

Andrew doesn't offer an answer. Nick cites the Hindu philosophy of purusha and prakriti, but this is really unsupportable. The Samkhya doctrine is dualist, and if not athiest then polytheist — it's certainly not the philosophy of a Personal God, such as believed by the Jews.

And there's no evidence of the doctrine in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Matthew's reference to Isaiah for example (Isaiah 7:14) certainly cannot be interpreted this way.

So I think we can say, with no evidence whatsoever to support the claim, and with a recognised tendency to play fast and loose with the doctrines of the Great Traditions, that it is demonstrably spurious.

+++

Wil basis his critique on a mistranslation.

His claim is that the Evangelists and the Church Fathers misread the Hebrew term almah, which means 'young woman' or 'maiden', to mean 'virgin'.

The problem is, it's not quite that simple.

The Hebrew term almah does not explicitly mean 'virgin'. In fact no Hebrew term does. So the term has to be read in context to ascertain its meaning.

The next point is that the Rabbis who translated the Hebrew into Greek, some 300 years before the birth of Christ, chose the word parthenos as the Greek equivalent of almah. That doesn't explicitly mean 'virgin' either. The point then is that in both Hebrew and Greek, if one wants to say 'virgin' one has to make that inference in context.

So where did the idea of virgin birth comes from, if it's not stated in the text, or asserted in commentary, or has any significance to the Jews?

The only answer must be oral tradition.

Now, let me play devil's advocate for the moment:

Supposing, for the sake of argument, that the message of Isaiah 7 was understood to mean a young woman — not a virgin — would bear a child.

Why would Matthew, an educated and erudite Jew, most probably a Rabbi, and certainly well schooled in the Hebrew Scriptures, make such a hard-to-explain mistake? Why 'invent' when the invention would do nothing but invite the scorn of Jew and Gentile alike? Why promote such an outrageous doctrine, for no good reason whatsoever?

Why make the explicit inference of virgin birth? In his lineage of Our Lord, each person begats the next generation, until Joseph. The sudden change of style says it all:
"... And Eliud begot Eleazar. And Eleazar begot Mathan. And Mathan begot Jacob.
And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ" (Matthew 1:1-16, my emphasis) — the text does not say that Joseph begot Jesus, and, in context, it trumpets the fact.

Let's turn to Luke. Here we have an educated and erudite Greek, and yet he, like Matthew, for no good reason, also makes an explicit point: "And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph" (Luke 3:23 my emphasis). He follows the Marian line back to Adam – and tradition asserts he knew and spoke to the Virgin. The Greeks say he painted the first icon, a portrait of her.

So I ask, why would two highly educated men, both authors of a most sophisticated text (Matthew for its chiastic structure, Luke for his journey motif) make such an inexplicable error?

So the 'translation error' hypothesis really doesn't stand up, either.

Ben's rape scenario is not worth serious consideration.

God bless.

Thomas

 

[radarmark]

Not bad, Thomas. Can you give us your subjective probabilities of each (say Ben's is 1% likelihood)?

 

[Thomas]

Not bad, Thomas. Can you give us your subjective probabilities of each (say Ben's is 1% likelihood)?

Hmm ... you make that sound easy, but I bet your working of the possibilities is a talent I don't possess and then, subjectively, I'm utterly biased, so that won't help much either ... but ...

In a bizarre way, Ben's thesis must be heard: "She was raped by a Roman soldier".
There were Romans present, there were even 'actions' by Roman troops in the area. But is there anything to suggest that rape is a credible explanation? No. So the probability is, as you say, 1% or less.

+++

The Theosophical Society option:
The premise rules the idea out from the start. The TS works on the idea that there's one over-arching doctrine, of which all religions are relative and contingent expressions, more or less corrupted for various reasons, and that the TS alone holds the original doctrine, entire and complete.

It's a failure to adequately distinguish, at the metaphysical level, between the universal and the particular.

As an aside:
The Perennialists sometimes make the same claim. Guénon saw Hindu metaphysics as 'universal' which is, I think, an error. It might answer all his questions, but that's not the point.

Schuon championed the idea of the universality of religion, as do you and I, I think, but some try to infer there is a 'doctrine' from which all doctrines derive.

There is no single, over-arching, systemic doctrine that can be spoken, any more than there is a single 'Truth' that can be stated, from which all truth derives. The universal is formless ... it finds its form in particulars.

Back to the plot ...

As for the virgin birth signifying the emergence of creation from a pre-existing substrate, whilst the idea can be applied in a general way in almost every tradition, the TS version doesn't actually present the idea as it existed in either Jewish or Christian thought or doctrine, so it can't really claim it was misunderstood by them.

Really, it's an attempt to retro-fit a piece of doctrine from one tradition onto another.

In Christianity, of course, we have creatio ex nihilo, a whole different ballgame altogether.

The meaning of the Virgin Birth for humanity, in its Christian context, is for me something quite sublime. The Theosophical Society, locked into a cosmological/empirical schemata, misses it completely.

+++

Wil's option:
I don't think any serious scholar would suggest that Christianity is founded on a mistranslation.

Nor does the doctrine derive from Isaiah 7:14.

Isaiah does not necessarily mean virgin birth, and whilst the messianic implication of the prophecy was preached by the Jews in the Second Temple era, I don't think they assumed it meant a virgin birth either.

If the fulfilment of Isaiah 7 does not require a virgin birth, and we can assume that both Matthew and Luke were too clever to make such a silly mistake ... where did the idea come from?

Then, when it's obvious that divine paternity is explicit in all four gospels ...

God bless

Thomas